| Referrals by Sector | |
|---|---|
| sector | count |
| SNFI | 89 |
| FSL | 87 |
| WASH | 86 |
| Health | 44 |
| Protection | 38 |
| CCCM | 29 |
| Nutrition | 10 |
| Education | 10 |
| 2 | |
| Source: IOM & partners | |
The aim of the report is to provide a more in-depth analysis of the multi-sectoral CFM program managed by CCCM. The analysis is done predominately by sector to support all service providers working in displacement sites understanding of community feedback. It is important for the humanitarian response to be operationally accountable for our collective response to community feedback.
This analysis is automatically generated every quarter for each Camp Coordination and Camp Management program using Zite Manager to support their multi-sectoral Community Feedback Mechanism.
This section needs some additions and editing. The following should be added:
- The reporting period of the report
- A brief on how to read the report linking to the methododology and terminology section at the end of the report
- Contact details to find out more about the report and to provide feedback
This analysis is in a draft stage. Content and structure are subject to change, and the calculations will undergo verification before publication
1 Key highlights
Manually extract 3 to 4 key highlights from the analysis. For example:
- In the first quarter of 2024, X tickets were recieived Y% of which were resolved.
- The number of tickets represent a X% increase/decrease on the previous quarter.
- The top 3 issues raised were X, Y and Z, withthe highest number of tickets relating to the X sector.
- Any noticable change in trends.
2 Overview
Over the reporting period 454 community feedback tickets were received by 34 CCCM staff working across 55 CCCM managed sites. The amount of feedback received has TBC by TBC% compared to last quarter. Most feedback was attributed to the following sectors: WASH, SNFI, FSL.
Of the feedback submitted, 55.3% of total tickets submitted by women and 44.5% submitted by men. The most common feedback channel used is Help desk with 46.9% of feedback reported this way.
Of the total feedback received, 395 tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and 53 tickets were closed upon receipt . Of the feedback referred, SNFI received the most referrals.
A sankey flow diagram will be added here to show the flow of tickets through the various stages of the CFM
Of the referred feedback, 20 tickets were still being processed at time of report generation with 19 Open and 1 in-progress. Another, 51 tickets had received a response from the service provider, but CCCM has yet to close the feedback loop and inform the person of the provider’s response.
The most common responses from service providers are as follows: by the service providers were TBC, TBC, and TBC. Nutrition has the highest response rate, while Education has the lowest.
| Referrals and resolution rate by Sector | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| sector | referred | resolved | % resolved |
| Health | 44 | 5 | 11% |
| CCCM | 29 | 3 | 10% |
| Nutrition | 10 | 1 | 10% |
| Education | 10 | 1 | 10% |
| WASH | 86 | 5 | 6% |
| FSL | 87 | 5 | 6% |
| Protection | 38 | 2 | 5% |
| SNFI | 89 | 2 | 2% |
| 2 | 0 | 0% | |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
Within the reporting period, TBC% of referred tickets were closed by CCCM – meaning that CCCM followed up with the person after completing the referral. On average it took 45.4 days from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete.
Of the 51 replies completed, 24 issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and 86 issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.
The below table breaks down the resolution rates as reported by the service provider and the affected person who provided the feedback. By resolution, we understand it means the person has been provided with an adequate solution that addresses their feedback. For many reasons, people may not be able to receive assistance because of eligibility, funding or other operational constraints. The table below also contains percentage of cases where both service provider and affected person report the issue as resolved. A low percentage of confirmed resolution rates suggests a possible communication issue between CCCM and the service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or a combination of both. To find out more about this see the methods section here.
| Comparison of replies and resolution by service providers and affected population | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sector | replied | resolved by SP1 | resolved by AP2 | resolved both | % resolved both |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NaN | |
| Education | 10 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 25% |
| Health | 41 | 5 | 11 | 2 | 14% |
| WASH | 69 | 5 | 35 | 4 | 11% |
| FSL | 72 | 5 | 15 | 2 | 11% |
| CCCM | 26 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0% |
| Protection | 32 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0% |
| SNFI | 72 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 0% |
| Nutrition | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| 1 Reported resolved by the service provider. 2 Reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback | |||||
| Source: IOM & partners | |||||
The rate of resolution according to service providers reporting has changed by TBC% when compared to last reporting period. Health has the highest resolution rate when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.
The table below shows the top 5 feedback topics that were referred during this reporting period with Food Ration as the top feedback received. This type of assistance saw a Food Ration% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.
| Top 5 referred feedback | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback_about | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Food Ration | 67 | 57 | 85% | 2278 | 21% | 4% |
| NFI Kits or items | 32 | 28 | 88% | 1088 | 16% | 0% |
| HH Shelter Repairs | 26 | 18 | 69% | 884 | 8% | 4% |
| Dignity Kit | 20 | 17 | 85% | 680 | 5% | 10% |
| Latrine | 20 | 16 | 80% | 680 | 35% | 5% |
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
Of the issues that have been closed, 39.2{ perc_replied_expired_tickets} % of these issues CCCM did not receive a response from the responsible service provider. CCCM limits the time service providers must respond in 30 days to ensure the feedback loop is closed in a timely manner, and prevent tickets being left open indefinitely. During the follow-up for expired tickets, people are always provided a chance to report their issue again if it is still relevant. During this period, there was an TBC% increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period.
| Ticket expiry by Sector | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| sector | referred | expired | expiry rate |
| Education | 10 | 6 | 60% |
| FSL | 87 | 48 | 55% |
| 2 | 1 | 50% | |
| SNFI | 89 | 43 | 48% |
| CCCM | 29 | 12 | 41% |
| Nutrition | 10 | 4 | 40% |
| WASH | 86 | 31 | 36% |
| Protection | 38 | 12 | 32% |
| Health | 44 | 12 | 27% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
3 Sectors
This section provides analysis of each sector, providing an overview of the main feddback to each sector, their reply and response performance as well as a breakdown by region.
3.1 CCCM
3.1.1 Overview
Over the reporting period, CCCM received {python} m_sector_count_ticket pieces of community feedback collected across 19 Sites. CCCM received a total of CCCM of the total tickets received – an increase/decrease of TBC% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from Shire Kebele 02 - ABA, Sebacare 4, and Kutiso Market.
Of the total feedback received, 29 tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and 4 tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with Over the reporting period, Solar street Lights as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a TBC% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.
For the referred tickets, 2 tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with 2, and 1 had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.
['ticket',
'site_id',
'site',
'url',
'status_current',
'comments',
'date_last_reviewed',
'reason_current',
'date_received',
'channel_received',
'channel_group',
'channel_impact',
'ticket_type',
'status_initial',
'reason_initial',
'description',
'sector',
'flagged',
'gender',
'age',
'date_reply',
'reply_group',
'channel_reply',
'reply_resolution',
'feedback_about',
'disability',
'demographic',
'received_user',
'reply_user',
'priority',
'pwd',
'host',
'region_1',
'region_2',
'region_3',
'site_type',
'Case Information Details/Number of Submissions in Case',
'lon',
'lat',
'ADM1_PCODE',
'ADM1_EN',
'ADM2_PCODE',
'ADM2_EN',
'ADM3_PCODE',
'ADM3_EN',
'v_cur',
'v_flag',
'v_inpro',
'v_open',
'v_closed',
'v_refer',
'v_response',
'v_resolved_sp',
'v_resolved_ap',
'v_resolved_both',
'v_resolved_either',
'v_replied',
'v_exp',
'v_day_diff_reply',
'v_day_diff_reply_median',
'v_day_diff_reply_mean']
| status_current | count |
|---|---|
| str | u32 |
| "Responded" | 51 |
| "Closed" | 383 |
| "Open" | 19 |
| "In-Progress" | 1 |
| Sectoral reply rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| reason_current | referred | replied | % replied |
| Lack of Funding | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| Can't Resolve | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| Resolved | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| Closed upon receipt | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| Pending | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| No Response | 12 | 11 | 92% |
| 5 | 3 | 60% | |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.
On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.
Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.
The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.
| CCCM - Comparison of tickets by topic | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Communal Kitchen | 6 | 6 | 100% | 34 | 33% | 17% |
| Solar street Lights | 6 | 6 | 100% | 44 | 17% | 0% |
| Site Maintenance | 4 | 3 | 75% | 160 | 25% | 0% |
| Communal buildings or facilities | 3 | 3 | 100% | 34 | 33% | 33% |
| Other (CCCM) | 2 | 1 | 50% | 41 | 0% | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”
The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.
| CCCM - Comparison of replies and resolution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | resolved by SP1 | resolved by AP2 | resolved by either | resolved by both | % resolved by both |
| Communal Kitchen | 6 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0% |
| Solar street Lights | 6 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Site Maintenance | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Communal buildings or facilities | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0% |
| SSSMT Kit | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
|||||||
Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.
| CCCM - Ticket expiry | ||
|---|---|---|
| referred | expired | expiry rate |
| 29 | 12 | 41% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||
3.1.2 Region
The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.
When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.
To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.
Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.
| CCCM - feedback per region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Tigray | 16 | 14 | 88% | 33 | 19% | 12% |
| Oromia | 6 | 5 | 83% | 80 | 33% | 17% |
| SNNP | 7 | 7 | 100% | 69 | 29% | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.
The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.
| CCCM - feedback - top 3 topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Region | Site Maintenance | Solar street Lights | Communal Kitchen |
| Oromia | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| SNNP | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Tigray | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.
| CCCM - reply time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | quickest reply (days) | slowest reply (days) |
| Oromia | 6 | 5 | 83% | 80 | 0 | 299 |
| SNNP | 7 | 7 | 100% | 69 | 30 | 160 |
| Tigray | 16 | 14 | 88% | 33 | 0 | 64 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending | ||||||
When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.
| CCCM - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | resolved by AP2 | resolved by SP1 | resolved_both | % resolved by both |
| SNNP | 7 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Tigray | 16 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0% |
| Oromia | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.
3.2 Education
3.2.1 Overview
Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.
Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.
For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.
| Sectoral reply rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| reason_current | referred | replied | % replied |
| Lack of Funding | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| Resolved | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| No Response | 6 | 6 | 100% |
| Closed upon receipt | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| No Agency or Service | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.
On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.
Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.
The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.
| Education - Comparison of tickets by topic | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| School materials and equipment (books, uniform etc.) | 8 | 8 | 100% | 38 | 38% | 12% |
| School Feeding Program | 1 | 1 | 100% | 30 | 100% | 0% |
| School | 1 | 1 | 100% | 49 | 0% | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”
The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.
| Education - Comparison of replies and resolution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | resolved by SP1 | resolved by AP2 | resolved by either | resolved by both | % resolved by both |
| School materials and equipment (books, uniform etc.) | 8 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 12% |
| School Feeding Program | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| School | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
|||||||
Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.
| Education - Ticket expiry | ||
|---|---|---|
| referred | expired | expiry rate |
| 10 | 6 | 60% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||
3.2.2 Region
The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.
When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.
To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.
Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.
| Education - feedback per region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| SNNP | 3 | 3 | 100% | 49 | 67% | 0% |
| Tigray | 5 | 5 | 100% | 35 | 0% | 0% |
| Oromia | 2 | 2 | 100% | 59 | 100% | 50% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.
The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.
| Education - feedback - top 3 topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Region | School Feeding Program | School | School materials and equipment (books, uniform etc.) |
| SNNP | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Oromia | None | None | 2 |
| Tigray | None | None | 5 |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.
| Education - reply time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | quickest reply (days) | slowest reply (days) |
| Oromia | 2 | 2 | 100% | 59 | 13 | 105 |
| Tigray | 5 | 5 | 100% | 35 | 34 | 43 |
| SNNP | 3 | 3 | 100% | 49 | 30 | 121 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending | ||||||
When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.
| Education - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | resolved by AP2 | resolved by SP1 | resolved_both | % resolved by both |
| Oromia | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50% |
| SNNP | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Tigray | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NaN |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.
3.3 FSL
3.3.1 Overview
Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.
Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.
For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.
| Sectoral reply rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| reason_current | referred | replied | % replied |
| Pending | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| Resolved | 5 | 5 | 100% |
| No Response | 48 | 45 | 94% |
| Lack of Funding | 12 | 11 | 92% |
| No Agency or Service | 6 | 5 | 83% |
| 7 | 4 | 57% | |
| Closed upon receipt | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| Can't Resolve | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.
On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.
Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.
The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.
| FSL - Comparison of tickets by topic | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Food Ration | 67 | 57 | 85% | 34 | 21% | 4% |
| Cash Assistance for Food | 10 | 9 | 90% | 47 | 10% | 10% |
| Supplementary Food Support | 4 | 2 | 50% | 33 | 0% | 0% |
| 2 | 1 | 50% | 35 | 0% | 0% | |
| Income activities | 2 | 2 | 100% | 93 | 0% | 50% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”
The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.
| FSL - Comparison of replies and resolution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | resolved by SP1 | resolved by AP2 | resolved by either | resolved by both | % resolved by both |
| Food Ration | 67 | 57 | 3 | 14 | 16 | 1 | 1% |
| Cash Assistance for Food | 10 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10% |
| Supplementary Food Support | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Agriculture (farming, gardening and seeds) | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Income activities | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
|||||||
Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.
| FSL - Ticket expiry | ||
|---|---|---|
| referred | expired | expiry rate |
| 87 | 48 | 55% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||
3.3.2 Region
The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.
When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.
To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.
Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.
| FSL - feedback per region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Oromia | 22 | 20 | 91% | 53 | 23% | 9% |
| Somali | 1 | 1 | 100% | 176 | 0% | 0% |
| SNNP | 13 | 9 | 69% | 47 | 8% | 0% |
| Tigray | 51 | 42 | 82% | 33 | 18% | 6% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.
The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.
| FSL - feedback - top 3 topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Region | Food Ration | Cash Assistance for Food | Supplementary Food Support |
| Oromia | 15 | 3 | None |
| SNNP | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Somali | 1 | None | None |
| Tigray | 46 | 2 | 2 |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.
| FSL - reply time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | quickest reply (days) | slowest reply (days) |
| SNNP | 13 | 9 | 69% | 47 | 0 | 123 |
| Tigray | 51 | 42 | 82% | 33 | 0 | 51 |
| Oromia | 22 | 20 | 91% | 53 | 0 | 112 |
| Somali | 1 | 1 | 100% | 176 | 176 | 176 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending | ||||||
When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.
| FSL - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | resolved by AP2 | resolved by SP1 | resolved_both | % resolved by both |
| SNNP | 13 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Oromia | 22 | 20 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 17% |
| Somali | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NaN |
| Tigray | 51 | 42 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 9% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.
3.4 Health
3.4.1 Overview
Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.
Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.
For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.
| Sectoral reply rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| reason_current | referred | replied | % replied |
| Lack of Funding | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| Resolved | 5 | 5 | 100% |
| Closed upon receipt | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| Can t Verify | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| No Response | 12 | 12 | 100% |
| Can't Resolve | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 20 | 17 | 85% | |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.
On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.
Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.
The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.
| Health - Comparison of tickets by topic | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Mobile Health | 12 | 11 | 92% | 63 | 50% | 0% |
| MHPSS | 11 | 10 | 91% | 27 | 0% | 27% |
| Health Clinic (inside camp) | 8 | 7 | 88% | 28 | 12% | 0% |
| Emergency Transport (general) | 5 | 5 | 100% | 34 | 0% | 0% |
| Health Post | 3 | 3 | 100% | 33 | 33% | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”
The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.
| Health - Comparison of replies and resolution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | resolved by SP1 | resolved by AP2 | resolved by either | resolved by both | % resolved by both |
| Mobile Health | 12 | 11 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| MHPSS | 11 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0% |
| Health Clinic (inside camp) | 8 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Emergency Transport (general) | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Health Post | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
|||||||
Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.
| Health - Ticket expiry | ||
|---|---|---|
| referred | expired | expiry rate |
| 44 | 12 | 27% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||
3.4.2 Region
The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.
When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.
To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.
Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.
| Health - feedback per region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| SNNP | 8 | 7 | 88% | 54 | 12% | 0% |
| Tigray | 36 | 34 | 94% | 28 | 28% | 14% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.
The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.
| Health - feedback - top 3 topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Region | MHPSS | Mobile Health | Health Clinic (inside camp) |
| SNNP | 1 | 3 | None |
| Tigray | 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.
| Health - reply time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | quickest reply (days) | slowest reply (days) |
| Tigray | 36 | 34 | 94% | 28 | 0 | 98 |
| SNNP | 8 | 7 | 88% | 54 | 0 | 121 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending | ||||||
When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.
| Health - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | resolved by AP2 | resolved by SP1 | resolved_both | % resolved by both |
| SNNP | 8 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Tigray | 36 | 34 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 15% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.
3.5 Shelter & NFI
3.5.1 Overview
Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.
Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.
For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.
| Sectoral reply rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| reason_current | referred | replied | % replied |
| Closed upon receipt | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| Not eligible | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| Pending | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| Lack of Funding | 8 | 7 | 88% |
| No Response | 43 | 37 | 86% |
| No Agency or Service | 13 | 11 | 85% |
| 17 | 10 | 59% | |
| Resolved | 2 | 1 | 50% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.
On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.
Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.
The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.
| SNFI - Comparison of tickets by topic | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| NFI Kits or items | 32 | 28 | 88% | 34 | 16% | 0% |
| HH Shelter Repairs | 26 | 18 | 69% | 31 | 8% | 4% |
| Construction of New Shelter | 14 | 13 | 93% | 42 | 21% | 0% |
| Shelter Materials or Kits | 7 | 4 | 57% | 41 | 0% | 14% |
| 5 | 5 | 100% | 37 | 0% | 0% | |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”
The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.
| SNFI - Comparison of replies and resolution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | resolved by SP1 | resolved by AP2 | resolved by either | resolved by both | % resolved by both |
| NFI Kits or items | 32 | 28 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| HH Shelter Repairs | 26 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0% |
| Construction of New Shelter | 14 | 13 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0% |
| Shelter Materials or Kits | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
|||||||
Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.
| SNFI - Ticket expiry | ||
|---|---|---|
| referred | expired | expiry rate |
| 89 | 43 | 48% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||
3.5.2 Region
The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.
When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.
To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.
Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.
| SNFI - feedback per region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Tigray | 59 | 52 | 88% | 34 | 7% | 3% |
| Oromia | 13 | 10 | 77% | 53 | 31% | 0% |
| SNNP | 17 | 10 | 59% | 122 | 24% | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.
The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.
| SNFI - feedback - top 3 topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Region | NFI Kits or items | Construction of New Shelter | HH Shelter Repairs |
| Oromia | 6 | 2 | 2 |
| SNNP | 2 | 4 | 8 |
| Tigray | 24 | 8 | 16 |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.
| SNFI - reply time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | quickest reply (days) | slowest reply (days) |
| Tigray | 59 | 52 | 88% | 34 | 0 | 75 |
| Oromia | 13 | 10 | 77% | 53 | 0 | 275 |
| SNNP | 17 | 10 | 59% | 122 | 0 | 145 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending | ||||||
When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.
| SNFI - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | resolved by AP2 | resolved by SP1 | resolved_both | % resolved by both |
| SNNP | 17 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Oromia | 13 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Tigray | 59 | 52 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.
3.6 Nutrition
3.6.1 Overview
Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.
Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.
For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.
| Sectoral reply rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| reason_current | referred | replied | % replied |
| Not eligible | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| Resolved | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| No Response | 4 | 2 | 50% |
| Lack of Funding | 4 | 1 | 25% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.
On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.
Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.
The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.
| Nutrition - Comparison of tickets by topic | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Nutrition Supplements and support | 9 | 4 | 44% | 41 | 0% | 11% |
| 1 | 1 | 100% | 37 | 0% | 0% | |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”
The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.
| Nutrition - Comparison of replies and resolution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | resolved by SP1 | resolved by AP2 | resolved by either | resolved by both | % resolved by both |
| Nutrition Supplements and support | 9 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
|||||||
Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.
| Nutrition - Ticket expiry | ||
|---|---|---|
| referred | expired | expiry rate |
| 10 | 4 | 40% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||
3.6.2 Region
The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.
When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.
To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.
Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.
| Nutrition - feedback per region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Tigray | 6 | 3 | 50% | 35 | 0% | 17% |
| SNNP | 3 | 1 | 33% | 47 | 0% | 0% |
| Oromia | 1 | 1 | 100% | 79 | 0% | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.
The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.
| Nutrition - feedback - top 3 topics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Region | Nutrition Supplements and support | |
| SNNP | 3 | None |
| Oromia | 1 | None |
| Tigray | 5 | 1 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||
The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.
| Nutrition - reply time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | quickest reply (days) | slowest reply (days) |
| Oromia | 1 | 1 | 100% | 79 | 79 | 79 |
| SNNP | 3 | 1 | 33% | 47 | 0 | 47 |
| Tigray | 6 | 3 | 50% | 35 | 0 | 37 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending | ||||||
When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.
| Nutrition - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | resolved by AP2 | resolved by SP1 | resolved_both | % resolved by both |
| Oromia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NaN |
| Tigray | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| SNNP | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NaN |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.
3.7 Protection
3.7.1 Overview
Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.
Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.
For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.
| Sectoral reply rate | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| reason_current | referred | replied | % replied |
| Resolved | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| Can't Resolve | 4 | 4 | 100% |
| No Response | 12 | 11 | 92% |
| Lack of Funding | 11 | 10 | 91% |
| 5 | 4 | 80% | |
| Closed upon receipt | 3 | 1 | 33% |
| No Agency or Service | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.
On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.
Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.
The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.
| Protection - Comparison of tickets by topic | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Dignity Kit | 20 | 17 | 85% | 27 | 5% | 10% |
| Child Friendly Spaces | 5 | 2 | 40% | 47 | 0% | 0% |
| Disability support | 5 | 5 | 100% | 38 | 20% | 0% |
| Support for ID or documentation | 3 | 3 | 100% | 34 | 0% | 0% |
| Community Discrimination | 2 | 2 | 100% | 19 | 0% | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”
The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.
| Protection - Comparison of replies and resolution | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback | referred | replied | resolved by SP1 | resolved by AP2 | resolved by either | resolved by both | % resolved by both |
| Dignity Kit | 20 | 17 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0% |
| Disability support | 5 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Child Friendly Spaces | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Support for ID or documentation | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Community Discrimination | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
|||||||
Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.
| Protection - Ticket expiry | ||
|---|---|---|
| referred | expired | expiry rate |
| 38 | 12 | 32% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||
3.7.2 Region
The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.
When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.
To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.
Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.
| Protection - feedback per region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| SNNP | 2 | 1 | 50% | 38 | 0% | 0% |
| Tigray | 35 | 30 | 86% | 31 | 6% | 6% |
| Oromia | 1 | 1 | 100% | 34 | 0% | 0% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.
The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.
| Protection - feedback - top 3 topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Region | Dignity Kit | Disability support | Child Friendly Spaces |
| SNNP | 2 | None | None |
| Tigray | 18 | 5 | 5 |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.
| Protection - reply time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | quickest reply (days) | slowest reply (days) |
| Oromia | 1 | 1 | 100% | 34 | 34 | 34 |
| Tigray | 35 | 30 | 86% | 31 | 0 | 63 |
| SNNP | 2 | 1 | 50% | 38 | 0 | 38 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending | ||||||
When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.
| Protection - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | resolved by AP2 | resolved by SP1 | resolved_both | % resolved by both |
| Oromia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NaN |
| Tigray | 35 | 30 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0% |
| SNNP | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NaN |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.
4 Regions
| Feedback per region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | % resolved by AP2 | % resolved by SP1 |
| Somali | 1 | 1 | 100% | 176 | 0% | 0% |
| Oromia | 80 | 65 | 81% | 50 | 38% | 9% |
| SNNP | 65 | 50 | 77% | 63 | 22% | 0% |
| Tigray | 249 | 212 | 85% | 32 | 17% | 7% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
| Feedback - top 3 topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Region | NFI Kits or items | Food Ration | HH Shelter Repairs |
| Oromia | 6 | 15 | 2 |
| SNNP | 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Somali | None | 1 | None |
| Tigray | 24 | 46 | 16 |
| Source: IOM & partners | |||
| Reply time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | % replied | median days-to-reply | quickest reply (days) | slowest reply (days) |
| Oromia | 80 | 65 | 81% | 50 | 0 | 299 |
| Tigray | 249 | 212 | 85% | 32 | 0 | 98 |
| Somali | 1 | 1 | 100% | 176 | 176 | 176 |
| SNNP | 65 | 50 | 77% | 63 | 0 | 160 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending | ||||||
| Comparison of replies and resolution per Region | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | referred | replied | resolved by AP2 | resolved by SP1 | resolved_both | % resolved by both |
| Tigray | 249 | 212 | 42 | 17 | 5 | 9% |
| SNNP | 65 | 50 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| Somali | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NaN |
| Oromia | 80 | 65 | 30 | 7 | 4 | 12% |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| 1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider 2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback |
||||||
5 Sites
| Tigray - Sites | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | site name | referred | replied | resolved | median days-to-reply | link |
| ET010707001001 | Sebacare 4 | 32 | 26 | 2 | 30 | dashboard |
| ET010702004001 | Momona Secondary School | 27 | 22 | 3 | 32 | dashboard |
| ET010704001002 | Lekatit 11 Elementary School | 20 | 13 | 0 | 33 | dashboard |
| ET010108005002 | Tsehaye Elementary school | 13 | 11 | 0 | 27 | dashboard |
| ET010212004004 | Nigste Saba Secondary School | 12 | 11 | 3 | 10 | dashboard |
| ET010108001001 | Guna Poultry Farm | 12 | 12 | 0 | 34 | dashboard |
| ET010114001001 | Endabaguna Screening Center | 11 | 10 | 0 | 37 | dashboard |
| ET010308003001 | Commission | 11 | 11 | 0 | 33 | dashboard |
| ET010308002001 | UNMEE | 10 | 10 | 0 | 46 | dashboard |
| ET010212004005 | Nigste Saba Secondary School 2 | 9 | 7 | 0 | 28 | dashboard |
| ET010114001004 | Endabaguna Reception Center | 8 | 7 | 0 | 28 | dashboard |
| ET010706003001 | Lekatit 23 Secondary School | 8 | 4 | 1 | 35 | dashboard |
| ET010212001001 | Adwa industrial Zone (AIZ) | 8 | 8 | 4 | 23 | dashboard |
| ET010706001001 | Adiha Secondary School | 7 | 4 | 0 | 42 | dashboard |
| ET010108004004 | Shire Kebele 03 - ABA | 7 | 7 | 0 | 30 | dashboard |
| ET010108002002 | Atsede Kindergarten | 7 | 5 | 0 | 15 | dashboard |
| ET010212001001_temp | Adwa Debrichi Kebele - ABA | 6 | 6 | 0 | 34 | dashboard |
| ET010108002004 | Shire Kebele 02 - ABA | 6 | 5 | 0 | 26 | dashboard |
| ET010212009001 | Adwa Miebale Kebele - ABA | 5 | 5 | 2 | 28 | dashboard |
| ET010212001002 | Wowokma Elementary school | 5 | 5 | 0 | 34 | dashboard |
| ET010108005001 | Midregenet Secondary School | 5 | 5 | 0 | 42 | dashboard |
| ET010212002001 | Enda Tsion Elementary School | 4 | 2 | 1 | 35 | dashboard |
| ET010108004003 | Taba Weyane Tsinat Primary School | 4 | 4 | 0 | 23 | dashboard |
| ET010212005002 | Korea Secondary School | 3 | 3 | 0 | 37 | dashboard |
| ET010111001001 | Adi Daero Elementary School | 3 | 3 | 0 | 45 | dashboard |
| ET010108002003 | Fre Swuat Secondary school | 2 | 2 | 0 | 37 | dashboard |
| ET010110001002 | Farmers Training Center | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6 | dashboard |
| ET010212003001 | Adwa Hayelom Kebele - ABA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 27 | dashboard |
| ET010706002002 | Mesebo Secondary School | 1 | 1 | 0 | 47 | dashboard |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Somali - Sites | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | site name | referred | replied | resolved | median days-to-reply | link |
| ET041015001002 | Wara Yaya/Sheik Madobe/ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 176 | dashboard |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| SNNP - Sites | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | site name | referred | replied | resolved | median days-to-reply | link |
| ET071302004002 | Lultu Magazine | 23 | 19 | 0 | 47 | dashboard |
| ET071302003001 | Gelabo FTC | 18 | 14 | 0 | 121 | dashboard |
| ET071302004001 | Kutiso Market | 7 | 4 | 0 | 56 | dashboard |
| ET071303002001 | Gomola | 7 | 3 | 0 | 123 | dashboard |
| ET071302002001 | Balbala | 4 | 4 | 0 | 123 | dashboard |
| ET071303004001 | Segen Mezegaja | 3 | 3 | 0 | 124 | dashboard |
| ET071302001001 | Ayilota Dokatu | 3 | 3 | 0 | 54 | dashboard |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
| Oromia - Sites | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | site name | referred | replied | resolved | median days-to-reply | link |
| ET050203001002 | Qoliji 2 | 12 | 4 | 0 | 53 | dashboard |
| ET041015003001 | Tiro Gudo New | 9 | 7 | 2 | 41 | dashboard |
| ET041011001003 | New Golmasa | 8 | 8 | 1 | 91 | dashboard |
| ET041010002001 | Karamile | 7 | 7 | 1 | 41 | dashboard |
| ET041009001001 | Chelenko food store | 6 | 6 | 0 | 41 | dashboard |
| ET040903001002 | Tulo Town (Hirna Town) | 5 | 5 | 0 | 21 | dashboard |
| ET041011002001 | Fadiso | 5 | 5 | 0 | 53 | dashboard |
| ET041010001001 | Agricultural Office | 4 | 3 | 1 | 16 | dashboard |
| ET041010001002 | Ali Sheko Camp | 4 | 4 | 0 | 17 | dashboard |
| ET050203001001 | Qoliji | 4 | 4 | 0 | 51 | dashboard |
| ET041011001006 | Woreda Water Office | 3 | 3 | 1 | 105 | dashboard |
| ET041015004001 | Wara Somane | 3 | 1 | 0 | 49 | dashboard |
| ET041015002001 | Qobo Biqa | 2 | 0 | 0 | None | dashboard |
| ET041008001001 | Kersa Town | 2 | 2 | 0 | 50 | dashboard |
| ET041011001007 | Woreda Youth Association Hall | 2 | 2 | 1 | 96 | dashboard |
| ET040908001001 | Gelemso 01 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 32 | dashboard |
| ET041010003001 | Ganda Wagayehu | 1 | 1 | 0 | 16 | dashboard |
| ET040903001001 | New Extension Site | 1 | 1 | 0 | 275 | dashboard |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||||
6 Context & approach
Sentences about the context and the CFM program ran by CCCM provided by the mission. Any updates or changes to the program since last report. - Overall number of sites - Number of agencies - Number of CCCM staff (F/M)
Sentence here by mission explaining the feedback channels used and if there are difference in approach in different location. The channels used for collection and replies.
Of the feedback submitted, the top common feedback channels used by the affected population to reach CCCM to provide their feedback are {top_channel_1} (Name & Percent), {top_channel_2} (Name & Percent), and {top_channel_3} (Name & Percent).
Those reporting feedback are more likely to report issues on behalf of {name_top_feedback_rep1} (Name & Percent), followed by {name_top_feedback_rep2} (Name & Percent) and {name_top_feedback_rep3} (Name & Percent).
| Channel usage by groups | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| channel | For themselves | For group of people or community | For somebody else | Entire site or block |
| Help desk | 153 | 38 | 12 | 10 |
| CCCM Mobile Collector | 89 | 80 | 14 | 20 |
| Community Committee | 8 | 8 | 2 | 4 |
| Community Meeting | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Referral from another agency / team / govt | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Source: IOM & partners | ||||
The below chart displays the affected population preferences of the feedback channels available by the {countdist_siteid} locations where CCCM is operating.
Often different demographics groups have different preferences and abilities which impact their access and usages of the available feedback channels. In this reporting period, men reached CCCM through {men_top_channel} feedback channel and {wmn_top_channel} for women, with {prop_wmn_submission} of tickets submitted by women and {prop_men_submission} submitted by men. The most feedback came from {name_topgender_1} between the ages of {topgender_age_group}, followed by {name_topgender_2} between the ages of {topgender2_age_group}, and {name_topgender_3} between the ages of {topgender3_age_group}.
The below charts outline the preferences and access of vulnerable households and vulnerable individuals such as those with disabilities or households with pregnant or lactating women to the feedback channels.
When following up with the person who provide the feedback, the most common way CCCM provides replies are {top_channel_1} (Name & Percent), and {top_channel_2} (Name & Percent). CCCM will also try to reach the person who reported the feedback directly either over the phone or in-person. However, if the person can’t be contacted neighbours, other family members pr community leaders are requested to pass the message on to the person on CCCM’s behalf. There is no significant difference between the demographic of the person who reported the feedback and the reply channel used. This is because CCCM staff are instructed to follow same protocol when completing replies: first try direct contact in-person or by phone (if a phone number was provided), and if this is unsuccessful to try and contact people connected to the individual. Then after XX attempts over multiple days if no contact is made with the person or any related contacts, the case can be closed without a reply.
7 Methodology
The report contains the analysis of the non-sensitive, operational feedback received by CCCM actors using Zite Manager. The community feedback is gathered and managed through the platform, Zite Manager, which helps tracks information about feedback across the entire referral process, including the response given by the relevant service providers and whether the person received a follow-up with this information.
The data directly reflects the daily activity of the CCCM actors, and the responses from the service providers receiving the feedback. The system is live, and the results change as feedback moves through the system.
The report is designed to be used by all humanitarian responders to support continued improvement of how the humanitarian system responses to community feedback.
To see the live operational CFM dashboard which updates daily and is designed to support CCCM teams manage feedback and coordination with other partners - www.zitemanager.org/countries
Please note the following while reading this report:
Community feedback is not a needs assessment: Do not use community feedback alone to compare needs between areas because different populations have different awareness and access to CFM systems. This information should be complimented by needs assessments and service monitoring data to gain an overall understanding of needs.
Community feedback is dynamic data that changes: CCCM and service providers are actively processing feedback daily. Only closed tickets will remain the same as no more action is required. So, the total number of active tickets (tickets with a status of open, in-process or responded) will change daily and the date the report is generate will input this number. This means the numbers change as tickets move through the CFM cycle.
Referrals are the responsibility of CCCM actors: Referrals are automatically generated and organized by sector through the system; however the actual transfer of referral data is under management of individual CCCM actors. If service providers are not receiving referrals but think they should be, please contact the related CCCM actor to discuss with them.
There are a number of reasons feedback may go unresolved: This may be due to funding, contextual reasons, access, technical feasibility, targeting criteria, and other informationem.
7.1 Terminology
Ticket: Each piece of feedback or ticket represents one issue, need or report only. Community feedback is not collected by household, so one person or household may have reported more than one problem. For example, having lost their ID and missed a distribution. One issue could also represent a problem faced by more than one person or household, such as a broken water tap.
Received: Total pieces of feedback (also known as tickets) that were received in the reporting period.
Referred: Tickets that were referred to sector partners for their assessment, action (if possible) and response. Not all tickets are referred depending on the type of feedback reported. If a ticket is Referred or not is based on the CFM sector standards circulated by CCCM cluster/sector.
Closed Upon Receipt: Are tickets that are not referred because they are addressed immediately, or we know it cannot be resolved (e.g., no agency providing that service), the ticket is “closed upon receipt” and is not referred.
Responded awaiting reply: Tickets that have received a response from an service providers but the response has not been provided to the person who reported the problem yet. CCCM partners have a commitment towards following-up with affected persons and closing the feedback loop.
Expired or ‘No Response’: If no response is received by the responsible service provider within 30 days of referral, the ticket is marked as having “No Response” and is sent automatically for follow-up. This means that CCCM must explain to the person that a response could not be obtained from the service provider and the ticket is closed.
Responses by Service Provider: To support analysis, service provider’s responses are coded according to a list of common reasons why a piece of feedback could not be addressed. Resolved means the service provider has resolved the issue.
Reported Resolution by the affected population: During the follow up, people have a chance to report whether the response has resolved their issue (Yes, No, Partially or Don’t know). This information is then visualized to record people’s perception of whether their feedback is resolved.
The analysis also compares the two resolution rates to communicate the percentage of cases where both service provider and affected person report the issue as resolved.
When interpreting these figures, it is important to understand that a low percentage of confirmed resolution rates suggests a possible communication issue between CCCM and the service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or a combination of both. For example, if there is no response from the service provider to CCCM, the ticket it is not considered resolved by service provider, but the person who reported the feedback might report the feedback as resolved for other reasons. However, we don’t expect to see a 100% confirmation rate for resolution because it is normal to see differences. For example, the service provider might consider their actions to a piece of feedback to be a resolution, but the person who reported the feedback might not agree and reported the feedback as partially resolved or unresolved.